Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs ) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC) [ reply ]
Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!
Is it well written ?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections , layout , words to watch , fiction , and list incorporation :
Is it verifiable with no original research ?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline :
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources , including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged , and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines :
C. It contains no original research :
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism :
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style ):
Is it neutral ?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable ?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images ?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status , and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content :
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions :
Overall :
Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.